Climate seminar, Prof Linzen

[carbonhed]

This guy is the dullest public speaker in the history of the universe but unlike Al Gore... he actually knows what he's talking about. There's a .pdf of the talk here :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rsl-houseofcommons-2012.pdf

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wy50yaBIDPE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hz_EYi2U3Wg?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hz_EYi2U3Wg?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[mashman]

I honestly tried, but you're right... almost 3/4 of the way through the first one I was starting to nod off.

[rainman]

This guy is the dullest public speaker in the history of the universe but unlike Al Gore... he actually knows what he's talking about. There's a .pdf of the talk here :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rsl-houseofcommons-2012.pdf

Can't say I'll watch the video (particularly after a sales job like that), and I must be honest and say WUWT has sharply disappointed in the past, but I'll read the notes.

What makes you say he knows what he's talking about? Do you mean you like his conclusions?

And, I'll see your RIchard S Lindzen, and raise you one Professor Lord Nick Stern, in a podcast series well worth the time. Be interested to hear your, or any other disagreement with his basic argument (skip the complicated econ bits in #2, I reckon, unless you now your Pigou from your Schumpeter).

I think he's a bit optimistic, actually... but he puts up a solid bit of logic:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2012/02/20120221t1830vOT.aspx

(http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2012/02/20120221t1830vOT.aspx)And, lest I be accused of not providing balance, here's a prominent sceptic from the same source:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2011/20110216t1830vNT.aspx

Diametrically opposed, almost. Lomborg certainly hates Gore. Yet what do they have in common?

[carbonhed]

I honestly tried, but you're right... almost 3/4 of the way through the first one I was starting to nod off.

:laugh: I quite understand... but without the flash presentation there's not a trace of spin in him and the science is fascinating. Read the .pdf.

[Jantar]

...
And, I'll see your RIchard S Lindzen, and raise you one Professor Lord Nick Stern, ....

Stern? he's an economist not a climatologist.


After attending Latymer Upper School, he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics at Peterhouse, Cambridge, and his Doctor of Philosophy in economics at Nuffield College, Oxford

[rainman]

OK, read that. Well, it's a bit weird, isn't it? Lurches from one cherry-picked chart to the next, through a field of ad homs and semantic arguments. Where's the science, except that bit near the end before his snip about climategate? Certainly not a typical paper format, presenting a clear argument.

Is he really arguing on p29 against the very straightforward science known in the late 1800's by Arrhenius and others? A bit weird, considering he's (for a change) a real climate scientist, even if one in a 3% minority (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html).Still, that's how science works I guess. Do you think he's disputing the data, or the model/mechanism? I'm not sure, after reading those notes.

I note he very carefully avoids saying the increase in CO2 and equivalents is not due to human activity.

[rainman]

Stern? he's an economist not a climatologist.

Yes, it's an economics lecture.

[Jantar]

... A bit weird, considering he's (for a change) a real climate scientist, even if one in a 3% minority (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html).Still, that's how science works I guess. ....

No, he was one of the 97% who agreed with the questions asked. As would I have been if I had been included in the survey. Have another read of the survey questions and then see if you can find anyone would be in the 3%.

[Edbear]

David Bellamy's piece on "Our Frozen Planet" was very interestring this week. There is no doubt about climate change or global warming seeing the way the ice sheets are melting and the glaciers are retreating and the Antarctic is going 3 x faster than the Arctic.

This does not appear to be the result of Man's pollution and destruction of the environment, but is running parallel to it thus speeding up the process.

There is no doubt now, that CO2 emmissions are having a marked effect, but that is also running parallel to the melting of the Permafrost in Siberia for example, which is releasing untold tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and is "snowballing", in other words the more that melts, the faster it melts.

These processes are unstoppable and with or without Man's influence they are going to occur.

Man is having a two-fold effect. His pollution is speeding up the Global warming process quite dramatically, but also, his pollution and destruction of the environment, particularly in the oceans and the rainforests is leading to the extinction of the human race and most air-breathing life according to the scientists.

I see it as two seperate but parallel processes with Man's efforts speeding up the natural process. According to David Bellamy, we should be prepared to see millions of people displaced by the end of the century as low-lying areas of land, including, of course, the islands of the Pacific, disappear beneath the rising oceans.

[carbonhed]

Is he really arguing on p29 against the very straightforward science known in the late 1800's by Arrhenius and others?

.

No.

HTH.

And if you'd read and understood even up to page four you wouldn't have needed to ask such a stupid motherfucking question.

[mashman]

Interesting read but not to unexpected I guess. Short version being don't believe the hype. We have no idea what the consequences are going to be, even though this has likely happened before naturally.

The way I look at things is that we are a forest fire. Back in the days trees/greenery ran coast to coast on just about every continent (Pangea or not) and something will have sparked a fire. Without firemen or natural fire breaks there may well have been coast to coast fires. A mass dumping of co2 into the atmoshpere. Whereas a forest probably grows back in 50 - 100 years, we're paving over our forest fire areas (and using the rest for agriculture) which mean that trees aren't growing back (them tall things that store co2). That extra carbon has to go somewhere and that somewhere looks to be the ocean and I'm assuming that that is part of the reason for ocean "acidification". We are also adding in the burning of carbons that have been stored Km's below the surface for millions of years that probably wouldn't have been burned naturally because of their depth and high boil off point. We are definately having an effect and it's a "shame" that with so many variables we will probably never fully understand what we have done. The document sort of back the never really knowing side of things up, but that's about all imho. We do love our models. I don't have much faith in these models, a relatively new found thing. Primarily because a geologist dropped into a long dead Volcano and with stunned gaze and voice commented on how simple their models were. That's 1 Volcano out of, erm, lots. Ignoring the outliers may well be ignoring the causes, but we'll never know because they're outliers :facepalm:. Do we know how important localised ecosystems were in regards to the bigger picture before we bulldozed them. No! We are having an effect, but who knows to what degree that is and who knows what the outcome is going to be. We are something new for the planet to deal with, all the guessing in the world will not predict the outcome of that.

The permafrost in Siberia is also holding down HUGE quantities of methane, which if the "science" be true, is worse than CO2 from a warming point of view. Dunno if methane will also be absorbed by the ocean and if it does what the ramifications would be.

[avgas]

I find the whole whole climate change argument invalid when you consider current consumption and growth rates.
Its kind of like the doctor telling you you need to quit smoking because you have lung cancer....................................ignoring the fact you going into a fit on his floor due to eating a lethal amount of rat poison.

So watch out people, the ocean is going to rise a meter and storms are going to happen all over the world.

Never mind the fact that we will run out of food and water, and probably be wiped out due to starvation 100 years beforehand.

[Usarka]

This topic is like religion.

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco industry. Make of that what you will or won't (because you will anyway).

[Scuba_Steve]

This topic is like religion.


this topic IS religion for many

[oneofsix]

I find the whole whole climate change argument invalid when you consider current consumption and growth rates.
Its kind of like the doctor telling you you need to quit smoking because you have lung cancer....................................ignoring the fact you going into a fit on his floor due to eating a lethal amount of rat poison.

So watch out people, the ocean is going to rise a meter and storms are going to happen all over the world.

Never mind the fact that we will run out of food and water, and probably be wiped out due to starvation 100 years beforehand.

No need to worry about the starvation thing either as we are going to be swiped out be a solar flare before that, December 12th isn't it? If I see the new year I will think about thinking about it.
In the meantime the whole climate change argument is as good away as any to pass the time when you can't be riding, as is any religious argument.

[avgas]

No need to worry about the starvation thing either as we are going to be swiped out be a solar flare before that, December 12th isn't it? If I see the new year I will think about thinking about it.
In the meantime the whole climate change argument is as good away as any to pass the time when you can't be riding, as is any religious argument.
Dammit. And I thought I was special because my 30th is the end of the world. Mayans 13.0.0.0.0 = 21 Dec
Looks like I will have to move that bash and celebrate Chatham Islands Anniversary day. WOOHOOO:crazy:

[Jantar]

This topic is like religion.

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco industry. Make of that what you will or won't (because you will anyway).

Could you point us to list of those names? I only know of one climate scientist who has worked for the tobacco industry, and he was doing research on climate relating to growing seasons. I do not know of any climate denial scientists.

[SPman]

....... disappear beneath the rising oceans. I don't give a bugger anymore - the sooner it happens, the sooner we'll have a seaside property.....as long as it rises 900 feet.....

[rainman]

No.
HTH.
And if you'd read and understood even up to page four you wouldn't have needed to ask such a stupid motherfucking question.

Fair cop, although I did read up to page 4 and beyond - his phrasing on p29 just seemed inconsistent with what he had said before. It's such an incoherent piece though it's a bit hard to see what his point actually is. Can you state his main argument in one or two sentences? What bit of his science did you find "fascinating"? (Hopefully something a bit more substantial than that an authority figure said it was OK for you to keep burning fossil fuels and infringing on the property rights of others at no cost, which is the usual anti-climate science argument).

Five minutes of googling has found the man to be all over the place, slinging whatever shit he can come up with (and on a range of topics, see below). And quite a lot of refutation is being slung right back. I can't argue the minutiae of the climate science (and I suspect neither can anyone here), but I have to say he doesn't look like a calm and reasoned voice in the debate. If his argument is so basic and slam-dunk surely he would have published a simple paper in a peer-reviewed journal that sets it out? (Not saying he isn't published, just that this doc isn't up to scratch, and his bibliography seems to be arcane meteorology details about clouds interspersed with pieces in Newsweek and the WSJ).


Could you point us to list of those names? I only know of one climate scientist who has worked for the tobacco industry, and he was doing research on climate relating to growing seasons. I do not know of any climate denial scientists.

Funny you should ask: Richard S Lindzen (http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/), it seems has an unusual opinion about tobacco, although I suspect he did not work in the industry.

[Jantar]

I'm not sure Lindzen does have any unusual opinion about tobacco. You have provided a link that quotes some other claim, but no direct quote from Lindzen himself. Maybe he does doubt the link, or maybe he is sure there is a link, but he comments on the statistics that show the correlation is not sufficiently significant. Without his direct statement we cannot know.

However that still doesn't help identify "A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco (sic) industry".

[carbonhed]

Fair cop, although I did read up to page 4 and beyond - his phrasing on p29 just seemed inconsistent with what he had said before. It's such an incoherent piece though it's a bit hard to see what his point actually is. Can you state his main argument in one or two sentences?

The .pdf accompanies the talk. Why you'd want me to paraphrase his presentation when you can just watch the damn thing bewilders me.

[Usarka]

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109



Could you point us to list of those names?

It was a book, I don't have a link sorry....

[george formby]

David Bellamy's piece on "Our Frozen Planet" was very interestring this week.

Who? Easy mistake to make, they are both British.

Did you note that that episode had been banned in the US?

[Edbear]

Who? Easy mistake to make, they are both British.

Did you note that that episode had been banned in the US?

Whoops who was it? Brain tends to have issues at times..:crazy:

Can't understand why it would be banned in the US... :lol:

[george formby]

Whoops who was it? Brain tends to have issues at times..:crazy:

Can't understand why it would be banned in the US... :lol:

The one without the beard. Attenborough does animals, Bellamy does plants..:nya:

Bizarre eh? land of the free etc..

[Edbear]

The one without the beard. Attenborough does animals, Bellamy does plants..:nya:

Bizarre eh? land of the free etc..

Of course it was! :Oops: :stupid:

[Woodman]

Who? Easy mistake to make, they are both British.

Did you note that that episode had been banned in the US?

Banned? your kidding right?:brick:

The sooner that place is bankrupt the better.

[Edbear]

Banned? your kidding right?:brick:

The sooner that place is bankrupt the better.

The US has been bankrupt for a very long time.

[rainman]

I'm not sure Lindzen does have any unusual opinion about tobacco. You have provided a link that quotes some other claim, but no direct quote from Lindzen himself. Maybe he does doubt the link, or maybe he is sure there is a link, but he comments on the statistics that show the correlation is not sufficiently significant. Without his direct statement we cannot know.

However that still doesn't help identify "A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco (sic) industry".

Meh, I did come across a more direct link but musta linked the wrong one. Still wasn't a quote from him though - and besides his testimony was 1991 which is almost pre-Internet. Also he might have changed his mind, in the light of better evidence, of course. So I agree the "worked in the industry" bit seems a stretch - but funding arrangements both for and agin' this are pretty murky, it's hard to tell who has worked "for" whom.

If he has real contribution to make I wish him well but would encourage him to get some communications coaching. What mystifies me is why he would release such an incoherent piece, when he is perhaps capable of just writing up his supposed killer evidence in the key peer-reviewed journals. He certainly has the time and access, and the requisite academic mana and qualifications.

If there was any evidence that it's all a grand misunderstanding and climate change is not actually a big deal, and someone had the key missing technical evidence of this, where better to find an audience to hear it than in the usual journals? If it's worth anything, then it will rapidly be adopted as part of the scientific corpus and others will test it and build on it to reach a firmer set of conclusions, which in turn can drive sensible policy. That is what science does.

That this has not happened is a reasonable endorsement of the current status quo, not ruling out any subsequent breakthroughs of course. To believe otherwise simply leads down the paths of conspiracy, which is nuts.


The .pdf accompanies the talk. Why you'd want me to paraphrase his presentation when you can just watch the damn thing bewilders me.

I've read the blurb and think it's incoherent and verging on ranting, and not part of the grown-up science discourse: I'm hardly going to watch the video. Besides you were the one who liked it and said he was talking sense - I simply wondered what bits you thought were particularly sensible. But no worries, I'll just stick with my earlier diagnosis that you just like authority figures telling you that it's OK to infringe on others' property rights for free.

[Jantar]

....What mystifies me is why he would release such an incoherent piece, when he is perhaps capable of just writing up his supposed killer evidence in the key peer-reviewed journals. He certainly has the time and access, and the requisite academic mana and qualifications. ......
Killer evidence about what? If there is ever a peer reviewed paper that shows Climate Change is solely due to anthropogenic reasons then there are any number prepared to publish and alternatives. But so far no such paper has been published.

[carbonhed]

I've read the blurb and think it's incoherent and verging on ranting, and not part of the grown-up science discourse: I'm hardly going to watch the video. Besides you were the one who liked it and said he was talking sense - I simply wondered what bits you thought were particularly sensible. But no worries, I'll just stick with my earlier diagnosis that you just like authority figures telling you that it's OK to infringe on others' property rights for free.

Riiiiiiiiight :laugh:

[rainman]

Killer evidence about what? If there is ever a peer reviewed paper that shows Climate Change is solely due to anthropogenic reasons then there are any number prepared to publish and alternatives. But so far no such paper has been published.

Well, let's think about it a bit:
- The general consensus (scientific, political and informed observer) is that climate change is a big deal,
- that human activities (those involving fossil fuel combustion, mainly, although deforestation gets an honorary mention) have a significant causative role in this,
- as a result of some fairly well understood science, this will all result in increased climate variability and a generally warming trend,
- this will take place over a long time, affecting generations to come, will impact the whole earth, and is driven by a complicated set of interdependent forces, not completely understood
- and that the impacts this will bring to our civilisation could be major, and include more severe droughts, flooding (yes, both), desertification, ice melts, sea level rise, crop adaptation failure, et al. The planet will be fine, civilisation and society... not so much.

This is likely to be a Bad Thing (maybe Very) for the people that aren't actually doing as much of the emitting as the rest of us, so there's a social justice (or as I prefer, property rights) element too. Policy proposals to address this vary because they are difficult and controversial and involve Changing the Way we Live, or maybe Doing Without Some Things, or worse yet, Admitting We Were Wrong, which as we all know, most people are uncomfortable with.

None of that requires a paper saying it's all entirely completely anthropogenic. And as science is the quest for truth, and its not true that it's an entirely anthropogenic problem, it's unlikely that one will ever be written, either.

Your response falls at about 2.1 on Rainman's Scale of Silly Climate Argument Lines:

1. Bah humbug there is no warming. Increasingly untenable, can safely be ignored by grown-ups.
2. But it's not us, it's the clouds/volcanoes/solar flares/small green aliens. Dangerous because there is a bit of truth in this, of course, but humans are bad at understanding shades of grey and figuring out an appropriate diagnosis and response to complexity.
2.1. It's not Only us, Mom, Jimmy did some of it too.
3. It won't be that bad! A bit of warming sounds OK to me, hur, hur.
3.8. It will be quite bad but solving it be eliminating the causes is the wrong thing to do, we must burn more fossil fuels, ja! aka the Lomborg delusion.
4. Were all fucked anyway, bring it on. (Fatalism is boring, I've seen enough of it in the peak oil world. Doesn't pay the bills).
5. It's a conspiracy I tell you, those scientists are always making shit up. Just sad.
6. It's all relative, find me one expert with a strong view and I'll find you one with the opposite, aka. the John Key delusion. Even sadder, reveals a basic disconnection with science and the search for basic truth. Pointless.

[Jantar]

Well, let's think about it a bit:
- The general consensus (scientific, political and informed observer) is that climate change is a big deal,

Consensus is Politics, it is NEVER science.


- that human activities (those involving fossil fuel combustion, mainly, although deforestation gets an honorary mention) have a significant causative role in this,

Causitive role in Politics? I would agree. But how about climate change? That is what the whole debate is about.



- as a result of some fairly well understood science, this will all result in increased climate variability and a generally warming trend,

It is the science I am asking about. If there is no research supporting your conclusions then it isn't science.

[Usarka]

There were plenty of intelligent well-educated experts who presented evidence against the earth being round......

Time will tell with climate change, but unfortunately if it is true then it's a little more urgent that the literal shape of the planet.

[mashman]

There were plenty of intelligent well-educated experts who presented evidence against the earth being round......

Time will tell with climate change, but unfortunately if it is true then it's a little more urgent that the literal shape of the planet.

It isn't round, it's an ellipsoid or spheroid, but not round :eek:

... and it's a little more argument than we really need either way.

[Woodman]

Great post Rainman, you put in words exactly how i see it.

Jantar, what do you think is happening to the planet re climate change and why? Your gut feeling .

[rainman]

Consensus is Politics, it is NEVER science.

What a ludicrously naive position that is. You're conflating science with absolute truth, rather than with a human process that seeks truth, and is therefore entangled with philosophy, sociology, politics and more. I suggest you read Kuhn (and his peers, and for that matter his principal critics) as a good start. After that you should try some Feyerabend for (un)balance... :)


Causitive role in Politics? I would agree. But how about climate change? That is what the whole debate is about.

So, let's get cards on the table. What is your principal climate hypothesis in one or two logically consistent and clear sentences?

[mashman]

- that human activities (those involving fossil fuel combustion, mainly, although deforestation gets an honorary mention)

I've had a wee hunt in regards to a question I've had for a while and haven't found anything on the subject. Granted my internet searching is useless but... We all know that trees produce oxygen, the bigger the tree the more they produce and conversely the more carbon dioxide they can hold. So I would have thought, without being able to find any evidence, that 2 things would be self evident... less oxygen being produced and less carbon dioxide being removed from the environment, which in turn would lead to higher co2 levels. I'm trying to find evidence/research on those levels as I don't imagine that they are negligible. Does such research exist?

[Jantar]

...
So, let's get cards on the table. What is your principal climate hypothesis in one or two logically consistent and clear sentences?

That is simple:

Climate is the average of weather and may be seasonal. annual, decadal or longer term depending on which cycle is being compared. It is driven principally by the sun. It is moderated by albedo, temperature sinks and greenhouse gasses.

[Jantar]

What a ludicrously naive position that is. You're conflating science with absolute truth, rather than with a human process that seeks truth, and is therefore entangled with philosophy, sociology, politics and more. I suggest you read Kuhn (and his peers, and for that matter his principal critics) as a good start. After that you should try some Feyerabend for (un)balance... :)....

I'm afraid that you are one who conflating science and a human process.

I'm not familiar with Feyerabend, but Kuhn does not make any claim that science can be carried out by concensus. My recollection of his work (I'm sure I have his book on scientific revolutions or similar here somewhere, but can't find it just now) deals more with showing how scientific knowledge develops. From memory he also argues against concensus as being science, and showed how paradigm shifts in knowledge occured against consensus.

[carbonhed]

So, let's get cards on the table. What is your principal climate hypothesis in one or two logically consistent and clear sentences?

That the earths climate is always changing.

That there is a greenhouse effect.

That a doubling of C02 should lead to approx 1C rise in global mean temp. A 1C rise in temp along with increased C02 will result in improved rates of photosynthesis and longer growing seasons. The biosphere will blossom.

To turn the 1C rise in temp into something scary requires the use of amplifying factors called feedbacks. The higher the rate of feedback the more unstable the worlds climate until ultimately we get a runaway global warming event and we turn into Venus. Just like a guitar too close to an amp. So we used to get scare stories about tipping points and blah diddy blah blah blah. Not so much nowadays because somebody pointed out that the Earth has had much higher levels of C02 in the past and if the climate was biased towards that kind of instability... we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Climate modelers use feedback factors of between 3 and 5 to predict future trends. Here's a graph showing Jim Hansens predictions from 1988 plotted against actual temps :-

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r319/carbonhed/Hansen1.png

And again from 1990 the IPCC's predictions :-

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r319/carbonhed/IPCC2.png

It's over twenty years now and nature simply isn't cooperating.

We've been measuring the ocean heat content with a large network of automated buoys (called Argo) since 2003. Here's the results so far.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r319/carbonhed/Oceans1.png

Zippo.

A key signature of all the models is the tropical troposheric hotspot. With extra heat and water vapour at these latitudes there should be an increase in those spectacular tropical thunderstorms. These transport energy upwards and heat the atmosphere in a region about 10k up that should be even more pronounced than surface heating. We've been measuring these temperatures using radio sondes since the 1960's. Here's a comparison of the model predictions and actual data :-

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r319/carbonhed/Tropospherichotspot.png

For me this is the the money shot. This is the DNA and fingerprint of global warming and there's not even a flicker of a doubt. It's not happening.

Climate models predict that as the Earth warms less heat is radiated to space because of the greenhouse effect. We've been mesauring the radiation emitted from the Earth for the last two decades using satellites and the opposite is true. The models trap heat too aggressively their amplification rates are too high.

Personally I think the Earths climate is biased towards stability and usually a lot colder than it is now. The feedbacks are low or even slightly negative. I also think that every cent of the billions upon billions piled upon billions that has been spent on this hysterical charade has been stolen from our future generations and ended up in the pockets of the usual suspects and strengthened the global beauracracies that we'll come to fear in the future.

All of this has been purloined mercilessly and with scant regard for thanks because I need a lie down but WUWT and Dr David M.W. Evans are your friends.

[Jantar]

I read that paper by Dr Evans. Also available in pdf at http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

It is a good summary of wht the models are wrong. I would still like to see a warmist hypophesis so that we can see why thay make such wild claims.

[Jantar]

Great post Rainman, you put in words exactly how i see it.

Jantar, what do you think is happening to the planet re climate change and why? Your gut feeling .

Sorry Woodman, I didn't see this post when I was responding earlier.

I am currently researching this subject in some detail. I hope to have two papers published later this year, one early next year and a major one that is still around 6 years away. Although I'm looking more at a Climate/hydrological link temperature does come into it.

My research so far is indicating that what we are seeing is part of a long term cycle. I'm not looking so much at the causes of any cycles, but more the effects. However the mere fact that there are cycles does show that CO2 is not a major driver. I will not claim that increasing CO2 has no effect, but so far I'm picking that it's only 10 -20% of what the IPCC claim.

As far as New Zealand is concerned we appear to be affected by 2 cycles, the PDO (long term) and SAM (short term). Other parts of the world are affected by other cycles. Over the past 30 years most cycles have been in a warming mode, but now the majority are negative. I will put my head on the line here and predict 12 -18 years ov cooler world temperatures, drier conditions in the lower South Island and wetter in the north east.

[rainman]

That is simple:

Climate is the average of weather and may be seasonal. annual, decadal or longer term depending on which cycle is being compared. It is driven principally by the sun. It is moderated by albedo, temperature sinks and greenhouse gasses.

Thanks. Do you think that the climate is different today (well, recently, not literally today) to the way it has been in the long term? Or do you think that all presently observed phenomena are in line with well-understood trends and the cycles that you have posited? In other words, is this business as usual, or is something different going on that needs explaining?

Edit: Just have to go cook tea and slap a few servers into shape, I'll get back to the science question later.

[Jantar]

My opinion is that climate is always different today to the way it has been in the long term. There are many cycles, some understood, some still being investigated (which is one of the strands of my own research).

Do I think that all presently observed phenomena are in line with well-understood trends and the cycles? No I don't, for the simple reason that not all trends and cycles are fully understood. Many are still being studied, and that is how science works.

I am not prepared to state a testable hypothesis in this regard for all observed phenomena, and I don't know of anyone who is. So for the last part of your question, climate change IS business as usual. The climate has always changed, and it always will. Mankind can best be served by investicating all causes and all cycles so that we can best adapt to changing conditions.

It would be a huge mistake to plan for one type of climate based on the past 30 years trends when the drivers of that climate have changed and we are heading in a totally different direction. One example of this is when Dr David Viner – Climate Research Unit claimed "... within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event....Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

Based on that the major british airports reduced their investment on snow clearing machinery, and many British counties reduced the number of snowplows and let their stockpiles of grit get low. Well, we all know what happened in 2010.

[carbonhed]

It would be a huge mistake to plan for one type of climate based on the past 30 years trends when the drivers of that climate have changed and we are heading in a totally different direction. One example of this is when Dr David Viner – Climate Research Unit claimed "... within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event....Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

Based on that the major british airports reduced their investment on snow clearing machinery, and many British counties reduced the number of snowplows and let their stockpiles of grit get low. Well, we all know what happened in 2010.

They changed the models? :laugh:

[rainman]

I'm afraid that you are one who conflating science and a human process.

I'm not familiar with Feyerabend, but Kuhn does not make any claim that science can be carried out by concensus. My recollection of his work (I'm sure I have his book on scientific revolutions or similar here somewhere, but can't find it just now) deals more with showing how scientific knowledge develops. From memory he also argues against concensus as being science, and showed how paradigm shifts in knowledge occured against consensus.

I also don't suggest science can be carried out by consensus, but it's nothing if not a human process.

Kuhn:
"The resolution of revolutions is selection by conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice future science. The net result of a sequence of such revolutionary selections, separated by periods of normal research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call modern scientific knowledge."

Science is much more than the "normal research" that he refers to. And science-informed policy has a whole other set of people dimensions, of course. More below.

In the case of climate science, one could regard the prevailing consensus as the old paradigm that needs shifting, but given the timescales that these revolutions unfold over I think it's more productive to see it as the shifting paradigm, with the old-school idea being the fossil-based science that gave us modern ag, chemistry etc. Either way, being pro- or anti-consensus does not make one right, of course.

Although empiricism is key to the progress of science it's also true that the sociological alignment of the science community is a large part of what drives us in new directions. This is frequently complained about by deniers/non-warmists (as "groupthink") but is in fact how it's meant to work.


Personally I think the Earths climate is biased towards stability and usually a lot colder than it is now. The feedbacks are low or even slightly negative. I also think that every cent of the billions upon billions piled upon billions that has been spent on this hysterical charade has been stolen from our future generations and ended up in the pockets of the usual suspects and strengthened the global beauracracies that we'll come to fear in the future.

All of this has been purloined mercilessly and with scant regard for thanks because I need a lie down but WUWT and Dr David M.W. Evans are your friends.

I won't go into a chart-for-chart refutation of your post because that way lies a discussion that I don't have time to sustain, and in general, two non-experts arguing in this area just generates heat and not light, however I'll make the following observations:
1. mises.org is not where I would expect to find good science
2. There is quite a bit of on-line argumentary saying Evans is cherry-picking his stats, and a cursory inspection of the data suggests his critics may have a case.
3. He's neither a climatologist or actually even a practising scientist, and doesn't appear to have any papers published in respectable peer-reviewed journals, so why should I pay him any more attention than any other nutbar arsehole with an opinion? I don't see why he would be my "friend" and in the search for truth, WUWT certainly isn't.

Why do you find this guy so appealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), anyway? And who are the "usual suspects" and "global beauracracies that we'll come to fear in the future"? Paranoid much?


I am currently researching this subject in some detail. I hope to have two papers published later this year, one early next year and a major one that is still around 6 years away. Although I'm looking more at a Climate/hydrological link temperature does come into it.

My research so far is indicating that what we are seeing is part of a long term cycle. I'm not looking so much at the causes of any cycles, but more the effects. However the mere fact that there are cycles does show that CO2 is not a major driver. I will not claim that increasing CO2 has no effect, but so far I'm picking that it's only 10 -20% of what the IPCC claim.

Cool, are you researching in the field through a university in NZ? Or is this private research? I thought you were an engineer. Will you post links to your papers when they are published? I'd like to read them. What journals are you aiming to be published in?

If you can substantiate that 10-20% claim with solid peer-reviewed science, then hopefully that won't be in your paper that's 6 years away - the world would be very keen to hear about that now, I think.

Your "effects not causes" comment is confusing - if you think we are in a long-term cycle then surely you need to prove that by identifying what causes such a cycle. Is the quality of data good enough to go back long term enough to prove a cycle of this nature reliably? What data sources are you using?


My opinion is that climate is always different today to the way it has been in the long term.

Eh? That statement makes no sense, or doesn't say anything.


Do I think that all presently observed phenomena are in line with well-understood trends and the cycles? No I don't, for the simple reason that not all trends and cycles are fully understood. Many are still being studied, and that is how science works.
...
climate change IS business as usual. The climate has always changed, and it always will. Mankind can best be served by investicating all causes and all cycles so that we can best adapt to changing conditions.

This is the problem with climate science - us little hairless apes don't fully understand how it works, and won't do so any time soon. But that gives us a problem: we know enough to know that the effects have long lags, so if we wait until we understand it completely it will be too late to fix. Also we don't have another planet to experiment on, so we can't do all the bits of traditional science we might ordinarily want to do to understand this.

I see it as being a bit like modern medicine: we don't fully understand the workings of the body but still manage to prescribe medicines to address conditions that we see as being risky e.g. statins for cholesterol problems. In most cases this either delivers benefit to the patient or does no active harm, in some cases there are some adverse effects. But the policy is better than doing nothing and contributes to human nett benefit.

If we act (intelligently) now to fix the climate issue, and find it actually isn't a big deal in 50-100 years, then no big deal, we have a better planet anyway. If we don't act because we don't know everything and it turns out as predicted or worse, we're fucked. Basic common sense says do the right things now. I listen to a podcast (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com) from time to time which has the tagline "helping you live a better life if times get tough, or even if they don't". Makes sense to me, moving from our current fossil-fuel based economy to a smarter one sounds like a clever thing to do for a number of reasons.

Of course some would say that it will be a big waste of money but we waste money on a massive scale every day, and besides it's really hard to tell the difference between that view and "I don't want to pay any more for the externalities associated with my lifestyle'. Oddly enough it's often the libertarians that hold that view; when it should be anathema to them.


It would be a huge mistake to plan for one type of climate based on the past 30 years trends when the drivers of that climate have changed and we are heading in a totally different direction.

What do you think is driving climate in a new direction?

[Jantar]

....Cool, are you researching in the field through a university in NZ? Or is this private research? I thought you were an engineer. Will you post links to your papers when they are published? I'd like to read them. What journals are you aiming to be published in?....

Up to recently almost all research I've undertaken has been work related and therefore not available for the public. However I have decided to return to University part time to complete some further post graduate study.

I am not, and have never claimed to be an engineer, although I have completed some work related engineering study. My initial university training was maths and physics, and after entering the elictricity industry I concentrated on Hydrology and over the past 15 years on Climatology. My research is in these areas and hence the need to return to university and gain post grad degrees in these fields. My first public research paper will be offered for presentation at the New Zealand Hydrological Conference in November and then for publication in that journal.

[Jantar]

.....
What do you think is driving climate in a new direction?

I'm not going to trap myself here. I am more concerned with determing what cycles are the primary drivers rather than what drives the cycles. My gut feeling is that the big yellow thing at the center of our solar system is the ultimate driver, but there are many more qualified people than I am who are working on that.

Just one question back to you: If CO2 is the primary driver then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years even though CO2 concentration has continued to rise?

[rainman]

However I have decided to return to University part time to complete some further post graduate study.

Good on you, we need more scientists.


I am not, and have never claimed to be an engineer

Never said you did, it was just an impression I had formed for some reason.


I'm not going to trap myself here.

No entrapment intended, it was a genuine question. You asserted that climate was possibly now being driven by different factors than before, so a change in policy was appropriate. I merely asked that most difficult of questions "Why (do you think that, what's the new driver)?"


My gut feeling is that the big yellow thing at the center of our solar system is the ultimate driver

And that is sort of an answer - but not to the question of why you think we are now entering a different phase of climate behaviour. We've had a sun for a while. The question isn't what drives climate, anyway, it's what factors account for the observed deviation from the long term trend? (With CO2 and friends being the most likely cause).

If you're just teasing longer and longer cyclic components out of the temperature record then I'd raise my eyebrows and ask about the quality of your data again. The "natural cycles" defence has lots of logical problems to do with causation. Explaining what put those cycles there is the tricky bit, and bloody hard to answer unless you are rather deity-esque.


Just one question back to you: If CO2 is the primary driver then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years even though CO2 concentration has continued to rise?

I think the canonical answer is "there has been" but I'm aware that there is some controversy about the adjustments and corrections that are required to draw this conclusion if one only looks at the last 15 years. A less satisfactory (but I suspect, still valid) answer is that it's just a minor blip in a long term trend - look at the last 100 years, for example, and the trend is clearer.

And I understand that looking at more than surface temps gives a clearer picture.

I suspect we don't understand the lags and leads and reinforcing factors in the climate by a long chalk yet. Perhaps a slow-down in the last decade will be matched by a double-up in the next? Hard to tell from where I sit, but once again, makes more sense to head off the risk than wait a decade or so to know for certain - unless you have slam-dunk science that proves the reverse.

[carbonhed]

I won't go into a chart-for-chart refutation of your post because that way lies a discussion that I don't have time to sustain, and in general, two non-experts arguing in this area just generates heat and not light, however I'll make the following observations:
1. mises.org is not where I would expect to find good science
2. There is quite a bit of on-line argumentary saying Evans is cherry-picking his stats, and a cursory inspection of the data suggests his critics may have a case.
3. He's neither a climatologist or actually even a practising scientist, and doesn't appear to have any papers published in respectable peer-reviewed journals, so why should I pay him any more attention than any other nutbar arsehole with an opinion? I don't see why he would be my "friend" and in the search for truth, WUWT certainly isn't.

Why do you find this guy so appealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), anyway? And who are the "usual suspects" and "global beauracracies that we'll come to fear in the future"? Paranoid much?





Meh. You asked what a sceptic thought. You got told. You couldn't cope.

The graphs compare model predictions from when they were made to NASA satellite data and Argo buoy data covering the same period. I'm sorry that's too hard for you.

Confirmation bias is part of the human condition. How do you cope with it? Of course there's always this other problem Noble cause corruption (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/gleick-342901-heartland-global.html) how's that working out for you?

Just stick to your strong suit... the drive by smear.

[rainman]

Meh. You asked what a sceptic thought. You got told. You couldn't cope.

Actually no, I asked why you thought it, or why you found it so appealing. (And at the beginning I asked what main points you had taken from Lindzen's loopy rambling). I know what you think, broadly - that's not the point. You could listen to the almost consensus view, or the maverick denier view, yet you chose the latter, and seem to hold it quite firmly. Would be interesting to get an honest statement of what the appeal is, that's all.

And Gleick? Yeah whatever - not like there isn't bad behaviour all over this thing. That's the problem: for every scientist you might claim is fudging research to keep their job, I can find you an oil co exec or shill doing similar things to preserve their profits. Never trust a man to tell you the truth when his livelihood depends on lying to you, and all that.

Would that we were all dispassionate scientists nobly questing for the truth, and we didn't have to ask about motives, but alas, humans are involved - and worse yet, lots of money. (As Mashy will tell ya, it generally does not make things better).

Good question about confirmation bias and how I cope with it. I am only human but find maintaining a good level of mindfulness (meditation is very useful), and not investing in or clinging too closely to any views, helps a great deal. I am able to be persuaded on almost anything - IF I am presented by a better argument than I currently have. (Although I do find it hard to completely let go of certain base rules, such as coherent logic, moderate affinity for the scientific method, skepticism of claims to authority, some base values and core views some may call spiritual, and the like - but such is the price of sanity I fear).

I'm not a died-in-the-wool "warmist" yet it seems the more plausible view (given the science is specialised and well beyond my pay grade - yours too, I suspect). I have yet to hear a good argument against following something like the Stern prescription of mitigation actions that will result in better outcomes for all of us whether the impact of climate variability is huge or not. So I continue to hold that view - such that it makes any difference.

[Ocean1]

Hindsight will provide a much needed baseline perspective, eh?

It certainly has done so far, with almost every widely accepted philosophical or scientific precept in history having been subsequently demonstrated to be wrong.

[rainman]

Hindsight will provide a much needed baseline perspective, eh?

It certainly has done so far, with almost every widely accepted philosophical or scientific precept in history having been subsequently demonstrated to be wrong.

Wow. Now that is an astoundingly revisionist view of progress. Clever, though, I'll give you that.

Although I'll wager your choice of things to play wait-ad-see with is likely to be a bit selective. As in the science behind antibiotics, water sanitation, internal combustion engines, computers etc. is fine here and now, but the science behind greenhouse gases and climate variability, or resource depletion, maybe not so much. Wonder why that is?

[Ocean1]

Wow. Now that is an astoundingly revisionist view of progress. Clever, though, I'll give you that.

Although I'll wager your choice of things to play wait-ad-see with is likely to be a bit selective. As in the science behind antibiotics, water sanitation, internal combustion engines, computers etc. is fine here and now, but the science behind greenhouse gases and climate variability, or resource depletion, maybe not so much. Wonder why that is?

Looking behind you can be enlightening. I sometimes find it difficult not to see the climate change arguments as being other than a modern incarnation of those that surrounded the observation of Martian canals, or phrenology. Certainly the damage to the dataset caused by so much corruption puts answers out of reach of any honest scientific method. Possibly the same effect caused the theory that horse hairs turned into worms during rainstorms to be quite as widespread as it once was.

As for wait and see? You’re right, I’ve selectively failed to admit that I’ll not wait for antibiotics, etc, ‘cause they're here, now, I can buy ‘em across the counter. Nobody has yet demonstrated to me that climate change as the result of evel human meddling is here. If I ever do find it's arrived I hope we haven't become a bunch of timorous wee beasties, because the one thing that would fix that is human intervention in a way and on a scale that only humans could achieve.

[rainman]

I sometimes find it difficult not to see the climate change arguments as being other than a modern incarnation of those that surrounded the observation of Martian canals, or phrenology.

Why? What do they have in common?


Nobody has yet demonstrated to me that climate change as the result of evel human meddling is here.

None so blind, they say, as those that will not see.

[Ocean1]

Why? What do they have in common?


They're all theories, universally accepted to be fact, and all based on unreliable data.



None so blind, they say, as those that will not see.


Dude, I looked years ago, and having seen nothing but poorly manipulated data and heavily contrived results I gave up. I look again every couple of years, but the agruements rage unabated, with, if anything even less light shed upon the issue.

In the meantime anything I do is going to do absolutely fuck all to help and is aproximately as likely to make it worse.

[oneofsix]

They're all theories, universally accepted to be fact, and all based on unreliable data.





Dude, In looked years ago, and having seen nothing but poorly manipulated data and heavily contrived results I gave up. I look again every couple of years, but the agruements rage unabated, with, if anything even less light shed upon the issue.

In the meantime anything I do is going to do absolutely fuck all to help and is aproximately as likely to make it worse.

Agreed. I fact the limited focus on Carbon means corporates, and people, feel free to create greater pollution else where in the name of 'carbon footprint reduction'.

[Jantar]

...
None so blind, they say, as those that will not see.

Pot, meet kettle.

I have gone beyond looking at other peoples results and reading scientific paper after scientic paper just to find the conclusions ridden with words like "may", "maybe", "might", "could" etc. Instead I have looked at the raw data in isolation and often found totally different results.

A prime example was Salinger's 7SS that showed massive warming in New Zealand. But when one looks at the raw data without any homogenization and treats changes in station sites or equipment as a new data set most of the warming just disappears. Yes there is still some, but that is mainly before 1960 and what has happened since doest pass a single statistical test of significance.

[rainman]

Pot, meet kettle.

Not quite what I was saying, but anyway...


I have gone beyond looking at other peoples results and reading scientific paper after scientic paper just to find the conclusions ridden with words like "may", "maybe", "might", "could" etc. Instead I have looked at the raw data in isolation and often found totally different results.

A prime example was Salinger's 7SS that showed massive warming in New Zealand. But when one looks at the raw data without any homogenization and treats changes in station sites or equipment as a new data set most of the warming just disappears. Yes there is still some, but that is mainly before 1960 and what has happened since doest pass a single statistical test of significance.

So get it peer reviewed and publish, sooner rather than later. Sounds like you have already done the work.

Edit: Or better yet, put a draft up here, at least of the data and calcs you describe.

Another thing I didn't pick up earlier. Of course there are words like "may", "might" etc. How could you write a credible climate science paper without these? Climate isn't deterministic, it's probabilistic (as I said earlier, so's much of medicine, doesn't stop them). There can never be a real scientific climate paper that says what "will" happen in the future with the degree of precision that you infer above.

[rainman]

You chaps like videos, right?

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_ch ange.html

[carbonhed]

You chaps like videos, right?

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_ch ange.html

Emotionally incontinent drivel from an activist whose long since stopped being a scientist. But thanks for posting.

[rainman]

Emotionally incontinent drivel from an activist whose long since stopped being a scientist. But thanks for posting.

Don't have anything other than ad homs and bulk quotes from mises.org, then?

[carbonhed]

Don't have anything other than ad homs and bulk quotes from mises.org, then?

This from the guy who called the Lindzen talk "loopy and rambling"... without even watching or understanding it I suspect. You certainly didn't attempt to rebut any of it. You're a fucking hypocrite.

Never heard of mises.org. Was just my first thoughts on watching and listening to that performance. I'm ecstatic that he's put that show out there perfect display of the ego and pursuit of celebrity that drives him. WTF is it with the hat? Indiana Hansen?

I suspect this will get torn to shreds.

[rainman]

This from the guy who called the Lindzen talk "loopy and rambling"... without even watching or understanding it I suspect. You certainly didn't attempt to rebut any of it. You're a fucking hypocrite.

Never heard of mises.org. Was just my first thoughts on watching and listening to that performance. I'm ecstatic that he's put that show out there perfect display of the ego and pursuit of celebrity that drives him. WTF is it with the hat? Indiana Hansen?

I suspect this will get torn to shreds.

It depends who does the tearing, I suspect, whether that matters. If it's people who care about the hat, not so much.

Correction: I didn't say the talk was loopy and rambling, I said his accompanying notes were - because they are. Quite unlike the output of any respectable scientist. If I handed something like that in for assessment at any decent uni it would get pasted, and rightfully so.

I didn't watch the talk, as I believe I may have said earlier.

You may not have heard of mises.org, but almost all the content you posted was a straight summary from there. Same difference.

[carbonhed]

I didn't watch the talk.

.

:lol: Thanks for your input.